Solo Gaming- Talk amongst yourselves.

Ok ok ok, truth be told, there are times when a home theatre set-up is perfect for gaming.

Duh.

Frankly I remember one time telling Stan something wildly outrageous like all Sonic games suck, or something like that, mostly to hear the long-winded response. It was hilarious.
(In fact, I've recently beaten and fully enjoyed Sonic Colors on my DS, delicious gaming)

But, it got me thinking (the recent discussions, not Colors), about the difference between solo gaming and co-op gaming. There are games that are made specifically for multiple people to play, it makes it painfully obvious.

Borderlands, Army of Two, Left4Dead, Gears of War 1 & 2, Halo: ODST.
(theres your list there kids, no Kirby to be found).

All of these games were made with the idea in mind that people will want to play with someone next to them, or on a local network. Army of Two basically demands it, Gears opens up new combat tactics if they're sitting next to you, and ODST has an entire game mode for it (which some might argue is better than the single player campaign solo)

Now, this doesn't mean these are the only co-op games, and this doesn't mean these games are only to be played with friends, they's just a few games that work well with it.

You'll notice you didn't see things like Rock Band and Guitar Hero on the list.
Aren't those co-op games? Well yes.... but..... recently at work we were discussing if you could call music games "games", I mean if you do call them games, then workout games are games, and if that's the case "Personal Trainer Cooking" and "My Stop-Smoking Coach", are games. Where do you draw the line?

I think for many people, at least older gamers, they call it when another person is involved or when the objective isn't as clear. Rock Band has objectives, goals, skills needed to play, but saying "Rock Band and Legend of Zelda are both video games", just sounds off. That's why older gamers consider them music games. When you bring another person into the equation, you completely change the games dynamic.

Co-Op games aren't a bad thing, but they take away, or at least can, take away some of the elements of a good game. Specifically length and achievements. Army of Two plays the same whether you are playing next to someone or not, regardless the game is short and has very little replayability. Borderlands gets you to play it again and again because of different classes, but if you'd only have the one character, it would become a game that you only play with someone around. And if it's a game you play specifically when someone else is around, that's a different kind of game altogether.

Maybe it's me being the old crotchety gamer, maybe I'm tired of games focusing on multiplay more than the game itself.

Bioshock 2, GTA4, Batman: AA are just a few games that come to mind that I personally don't think needed multiplay. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood is another one, but the multiplay doesn't seem to hinder on the solo game.

I guess I'll always see true games as a solo venture. Imagine if you were fighting Ganon, just your sword, your shield and your wits. He tosses a powerball at you that you daftly avoid, you smack one back to him and hit him square in the chest...... and some asshat kid was in the background screaming that you stole his kill.

Ok maybe not that dramatic, but when you add additional players, do you take away some of the immersion and storyline of the game? Kinda?

It's hard to have a storyline driven game that's played by two people, since it would demand both people be there. Which created the "jump in co-op" that allows someone to join when they'd want to. Gears did that, but still... at the end of the day, Gears of War is shorter because of the space needed for multiplay. That's a fact kids, games with multiplay are shorter in the campaign than games without.

Call of Duty.

ahem.

Now, could you play Rock Band with everyone wearing headphones?
I suppose, but it might be a bit weird. Ok no, Rock Band demands a home theatre setup.

Could you play Dead Space 2 or Killzone 2 with a home theatre setup? Sure. Could you with headphones? Yep. Which one makes it more intimate and personal? Headphones. But that's not to say a home theatre system wouldn't also do the trick. A shooter or a scary game with the headphones turned way up just feels different. And some games, like God Of War, demand headphones because of the uhh... ahem.... mini-games.

The difference there is Rock Band is a music game, while Dead Space and the others are solo games. I prefer solo games. The game designers consider me and me alone when they make the game, so I get more for my money on a personal experience. Not to say there is anything wrong with playing multiplayer. Solo basketball is a sad thing to see, but a group rubix cube is annoying. Both are considered games, just of a different sort. If gamers wanted strictly one or the other, you'd see a crash in the opposite unwanted category, but some gamers want solo games, and some want multiplay.

That all goes into time available and patience for the game. The same people who have multiple prestiges, and have beaten COD the campaign on all skill levels will often return Assassins Creed complaining that it takes too long.

IMO, video games are something you play until you win or complete (sandbox and music games are different), and you can't really "win" or "complete" a multiplayer  game. Sure you can be the top of the leaderboard, but give it a week or so, and you won't be. My point? I think there have been many more good games that focused on the solo aspect than there have been multiplay games. It's my $60, I'm not gonna spend it on somethin some hyperactive 7yr old can beat me in 30 times in a row.

Yeah.